DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.86/2015
Sanjeev Pathak
S/o Late Shri Satpal
R/o 134-D, U & V Block,
Shalimar Bagh,
New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
M/s Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited
Registered Office: Iffco Sadan
C-1, District Centre, Saket,
New Delhi-110017
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 01.04.2015
Date of Order : 27.06.2024
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal
1. Briefly put, complainant had purchased an Insurance Policy for his car from M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd, hereinafter referred to as OP.
2. It is stated that the complainant was taking the insurance policy from OP from last three to four years and complainant had received 35% NCB. It next stated that the complainant was going to Ashok Vihar, Delhi at normal speed of 40-45 Kmph. The driver of the vehicle who was going in front of the complainant’s vehicle suddenly applied brakes and due to that complainant also had to apply brakes with full force but was not successful in stopping his car completely. Hence, complainant’s vehicle hit into the rear of the vehicle moving in front. Due to the said accident, the bonnet of the car opened and hit on to the front windshield glass and as a result, it was broken/damaged. The front bumper of complainant’s car was also damaged due to this accident.
3. Complainant reported the accident to OP and an inspection was conducted by a surveyor on 29.11.2014 at Narayan Service Station. The service station gave an estimate bill for repairing the vehicle amounting to Rs.53,260/-. Copy of the final bill for repairing the vehicle is annexed as Annexure D. To utter shock and surprise of the complainant, he received a letter from the surveyor dated 01.12.2014 wherein, it was intimated that the damages to the subject car were not attributed to the accident. Copy of the letter dated 01.12.2014 is annexed as Annexure C. It is stated that though the bill was shared with OP, the claim of the complainant was declined by providing very funny reasons without any details. Complainant requested OP to give the insurance benefits as per his policy but all in vain.
4. Aggrieved by the circumstances above, complainant prays for direction to OP to award sum of Rs.77,674/- with interest @18% p.a and pendente lite interest from the date of institution till realization.
5. OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the vehicle in dispute was inspected by the surveyor at M/s Narayan Service Station. During inspection, it was noticed that there were old multiple damages on front bumper which had accumulated over a period and were not related to or caused by the alleged accident as mentioned in the claim form. It is further stated that the damages on the bonnet and front windscreen glass also did not occur due to the alleged accident as the insured car had hit a Tata Ace from behind and there could not be any occasion for the bonnet to have got damaged from in between from middle. The windshield also had not got damaged due to the said accident which is evident from the pictures of the vehicle.
6. Hence, it is stated that OP is not liable to indemnify the loss, as complainant has failed to disclose any cause of action qua OP. It is stated that the claim was rightly rejected as per the terms and conditions of the policy vide letter dated 14.03.2015.
7. In light of the above discussion, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed.
8. Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of both the parties. Submissions made on behalf of parties are heard. Material placed on record is perused.
9. Complainant in support of his case has filed the Insurance copy, Letter dated 01.12.2014 issued by the surveyor, FIR dated 26.04.2014, Invoice for repairs dated 16.12.2014 from Ambika Motors and another Invoice dated 18.12.2014 from M/s Narayan Service Station.
10. It is noticed that complainant’s vehicle met with an accident and an FIR was registered on 26.04.2014 in the Civil Lines, Police Station, Delhi. OP repudiated the claim of the complainant based on the report of the surveyor which is reproduced as under-
‘The subject vehicle was inspected by the undersigned on 29.11.2014 at M/s Narayan Service Station, Mall Road, Khyber Pass, Delhi. During inspection of the vehicle, we notice that the damages of front bumper were multiple and accumulate which were not attributed to the cause of accident as mentioned in the claim form. As well as the damages of Bonnet & Front Wind Screen Glass were not due to any external means.’
11. OP repudiated the claim stating-
“The damages reported and noticed are old, pre-existing and available in previous reported claim”. That is, you have tried to get the claim by misrepresenting the facts, which is against the universal principal of utmost good faith.”
12. From the facts stated above we are unable to understand that when the vehicle met with an accident on 26.04.2014, why did the complainant wait for about 08 months to get the vehicle repaired. Complainant has placed on record two repair invoices dated 16.12.2014 and 18.12.2014 which include the cost of repair for front bumper, bonnet, right corner light, front windscreen, silent kit, molding, painting and new parts fitting labour.
13. The fact that FIR with regard to the accident is dated 26.04.2014 and the complainant filed the claim before OP after many months, which is clear as the surveyor inspected the vehicle on 29.11.2014, points to the mala fide intent of the complainant. It is not complainant’s case that he had filed the claim on time and there was delay on part of OP to inspect the subject vehicle. The fact that the surveyor was asked to inspect the accidental vehicle after delay of about 08 months affirms that the damages on the front bumper, bonnet and front windscreen glass were not attributed to the cause of accident, which took place long time back.
14. In light of the discussion above, the complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits, with no orders as to the costs.
Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.
